The news keeps getting better regarding the Hoffman, Scozzafava, Owens race. Scott Johnson from Powerline relates a conversation he had with a friend and “principal of the political consulting firm of Red Sea LLC and the polling firm Basswood Research,” Jon Lerner.
Following up on Rothenberg’s column, I called Jon to ask for his take on the congressional election. He made so many interesting points that I asked him to reiterate them briefly in a message for Power Line readers. Jon writes:
To recap our discussion of NY-23, I have done three surveys for the Club for Growth. The initial survey was conducted at the very outset of the race, before any advertising was done by anyone. At that time, “Republican” Dede Scozzafava held a narrow lead. But it was apparent that her lead would not withstand the heat of battle.
About half of her support came from Democrats in the Watertown area who knew her pro-labor, liberal voting record and liked it. The other half came from Republicans who did not know about her liberal record but were supporting her because she was the Republican candidate. Once Democrats quickly learned that they could vote for a real Democrat, Bill Owens, they left Scozzafava. And once Republicans learned how liberal her record was, and that they had a conservative alternative in Doug Hoffman, they also left Scozzafava.
What remains is a close race between Owens and Hoffman, with Scozzafava continuing to collapse. Financially, Hoffman is in good shape, thanks largely to the Club for Growth and online donations. The DCCC, AFSCME, and SEIU are now 100 percent negative against Hoffman in their TV ads, which is proof of the closeness of the race.
What remains of Scozzafava’s vote is still about 2:1 Republican, so Hoffman has a good chance of growing further. But it’s a close one that could go either way.
Ironically, the one person who is doing the most harm in the race is Newt Gingrich. Scozzafava has no chance to win any longer. By Newt signaling to conservatives that it’s okay to support Scozzafava, he is making it more likely that Owens wins.
Even the NRCC understands this, as they have wisely limited their advertising message to attacking Owens rather than promoting Scozzafava. If Hoffman wins, and he very well might, it will be a great victory for the conservative movement, and a great lesson to the Republican Party.
Not sure what in the hell Newt is thinking. When the day comes that conservatives vote for someone just because he is Republican, and for no other reason ie: having a real conservative background, then we know we are sunk as a party.
UPDATE
That is why tonight, I’m proud to endorse Doug Hoffman, a Republican, running on the Conservative line for Congress in the 23rd Congressional District.
His endorsement comes on his other recent endorsements from Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Congressman Todd Tiahrt, Congressman John Linder, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Senator Jim DeMint, Dick Armey, and many others.
See author page
Amen.
I see a possible different twist to the premise that Newt’s support of Ms. Scozzafava will ensure an Owens victory…perhaps Newt endorsed Scozzafava to do exactly what it’s doing–pushing Conservatives to vote for Hoffman? I’m not trying to give Newt the benefit of the doubt here (as I’m not a huge Newt fan) just thought this was a possibility. Or, it will simply be the unintended consequences of his choice to support Scozzafava. Either way, I see his endorsement as a potentially good thing in the long run for conservatives.
A Hoffman victory will serve as a serious litmus test to left-leaning moderates in the Republican Party, compelling them to look in the mirror, then step up to the plate and listen to their conservative constituents’ strong concerns regarding the direction of the party, and most importantly, the country. Hoffman could be the breath of reform the Republican Party sorely needs.
@URI: I’ve been watching that Florida 2010 Senate race too. I tune in AM 690 Jacksonville and I couldn’t believe it when I heard Crist run the ad claiming to be running against Washington wasteful spending:
I guess he’s hoping that people will forget his embrace of Obama and full support of the Stimulus.
Maybe he’s been a good governor of Florida, but he’s not the kind of conservative we want in the U.S. Senate. He’s not best buds with John McCain and Lindsey Graham for nothing.
Crist has the campaign money, LOTS of it. And I would suggest that all of our friends who declare their desire to see strong conservatives nominated by the GOP should put their money where their mouth is and help Rubio by making a financial contribution to his campaign:
If Crist wins the primary ‘m not going to tolerate one word of griping from anyone about how rotten the GOP is if they didn’t do anything to Rubio.
Puritanism? Not you too wordsmith?
I am tired of that straw man as well. Folks like myself take exception with scuzzy and newt’s leftward shift, and we accused of being extremists demanding purity. What utter cr*p.
Remember standards? We used to have them. Now in order to get back into power too many of the GOP insiders are demanding we reduce them even further-as the selection of scuzzy proves.
As for Reagan, he sure as hell didn’t compromise his core principals. He attracted people by standing firm and effectively communicating his beliefs and how they benefitted Americans. That is my point about what we should be doing.
As for those “RINOs” voting with the GOP, they are doing so for only a couple of reasons.
1) They knew voting for those things were political suicide
2) They are trying to get back into power.
Watch them revert to their old ways if they again ascend to power.
Newt NOT a CINO? It’s like talking to obama supporters. Let me be clear, newt is NO LONGER a Conservative. Does he have to praise obama and the dems before you’ll see that? Benedict Arnold was a great patriot until he betrayed his country. I’m not saying newt is a traitor or that far gone, be he is getting there.
We have also gotten away from the point of the thread. In a Conservative voting district, a leftist was chosen by out of touch insiders. Not a Conservative candidate. Were this a purple district, I would agree with a moderate. However dede IS NOT a moderate and this is a RED district. In yet another dumb move newt is backing her and attacking Conservatives for not doing what the party is telling them to do–shutting up and voting for for who they tell us to. She is not in the party’s interest or America’s. There is no defending this. Trying to do so is just dishonest.
From whence comes this bullshit notion that Newt Gingrich was ever some sort of conservative stalwart? The guy was and is an effective communicator in the fight against the evil left. […]
@Hard Right: Newt made a MISTAKE in supporting the nominee of this flawed party process. I find it aggravating that you condemn him for not being perfect.
As for Reagan, he got criticized quite often for not being conservative enough and for selling out his principles in the White House. I remember. I was there. The people who were railing against Regan were WRONG just as some of this criticism of Newt is WRONG!
The fact is that we are going to have moderate and liberal Republicans and we should welcome them. If that’s the best we can do in that district then I’ll take a RINO over a Dem if it means we get rid of Nancy Pelosi. I am sure you agree that getting rid of Nancy is a lot more important than purging the GOP.
As I have said repeatedly, if you want a more conservative Republican party then get out there and work for that goal in your county and state.
Finally, you MUST recognize the difference between Newt and Nancy…. Newt IS a conservative. He is certainly more conservative than many others who claim that identification.
P.S. NRCC head sends out strong signal of support for Hoffman:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28899.html
@Ccoffer: I thought I’d help you out and edit that last sentence for you. You’re argument is much stronger without it.
I disagree, but thank you.
Chuck
@Ccoffer: I understand your point, but it doesn’t help to stir things up too much.
Mike, if it was newt’s first mistake I would agree. It’s not. He’s better than pelosi, that is agreed.
@Wordsmith: I’m not sure where you picked up that I quash any debate within a party. Nor was I in the least bit disrespectful to ccoffer. You must have me confused with someone else.
Have you, in all our time together, ever known me to advocate that behavior? No where have I ever given the impression that any party should be homogenous… unless, of course, you want a party of robots.
Nor am I “sitting on my hands” every election. Instead, I have acquiesced far too often to the BS espoused here about “electability”. And boy… how’s that working out for you all?
Quite frankly, if partisans on both sides of the aisle were NOT cowed into the BS that “you’re electing the enemy”, we might be surprised who is actually elected. If you want to get on my bad side, tell me who I am supposed to vote for as an “anti-vote”. I have one opportunity to genuinely express my opinion. And all I get is the crap about “take the lesser evil”. Sometimes I will do that. Others not. But if you’re looking for someone to blame, I’ll blame all of you who vote your R or D letters before I blame those who vote their conscience. If not for all of you, real “change” may come about.
But nooooooooo. I just get the 3rd degree from partisans instead. Horse manure. Take it elsewhere. That manure don’t compost here.
Under no circumstances will I accept the *leadership* of any party of which I am a member that favors Dem-lite simply for “electability” …. all while we pray they actually behave conservative once elected. Been there, done that. We could not be any more Dem-lite than 2008 INRE fiscal matters. And the GOP for the past decade could not be any more anti-conservative in behavior. In fact, you may just want to revisit Congress for the past few decades since FDR. As I said… death by a thousand cuts.
No more. I refuse to be any part of a party that believes cutting on one arm is far superior to cutting off both arms and a leg, and say that constitutes improvement. As far as I’m concerned, no one has said it better than @Rick from the 23rd in his comment. Sorry… that Halloween elephant suit does not hang in my closet, ready to be dutifully donned every election cycle. There may be no perfect candidate, but the best candidate for me is not determined by a letter behind the name.
@Mike’s America, you say… no, make that shout.. ” NO VIABLE CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO THE GOP”. You may accept that as permanent fact. I don’t. And in fact, I look back in history as to how parties have morphed and changed over time. The GOP will either morph and provide an alternative other than “that other party, but not quite as much…”, or be abandoned.
When even Hannity… about as partisan a talking head as one can get… abandons the GOP and registers as a Conservative Party member in NY, you have to know you’re on a losing streak. The tent is big enough for conservatives and moderates. It, however, is not a tent that will survive without the conservatives being the guiding force of power and principles, and the moderates being the second stringers. Those roles have been reversed for too long. Either put them in their proper perspective, or face the repercussions of a mass exodus.
I am not a Republican, and I don’t care if the GOP goes away. Another constituent group… with or without a name… will take it’s place at the ballot box. Voters are not a party, they are individuals. And in fact, the Founding Fathers hated the concept of parties anyway. Voters are people with principles. I do not yield them to a party to gain power, and then watch them be no better than what I oppose.
And if I didn’t make it plain before, count me standing with Old Trooper, Rick/23rd, and Timothy here. Game time’s over. Revamp the leadership and direction, or face the music.
There is a new day dawning, expect more of this to come. The GOP sunk $907,000 in Dede’s campaign and then walked away a few days ago. Is this a responsible investment or smart vetting or a bit of the old boy’s club, same old, same old?
The first time I met George Ryan I got a sick icky feeling about him knowing he was the heir apparent for Illinois next Republican candidate for governor. Even took on his campaign paraphenalia and had it distributed with my congressman’s material, I didn’t like myself for doing it. He’s sitting in prison now, unfortunately, it wasn’t time to buck the system then.
We’ve been talking and encouraging the tea parties from the beginning, we are now starting to see some results of their work, we can’t lose steam or let these patriots down now.
I’ve missed out on most of the postings here, but am glad Rick from the 23rd found his way here. We held our nose and voted for McCain, he has a chance to vote for someone he believes in and it looks like the Repubs are eager to welcome him into the fold. Too bad they didn’t do their homework because if they had they would have avoided this mess and Hoffman would be ahead instead of in a squeaker.
@MataHarley: Let me put it this way… THERE IS NO VIABLE CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO THE GOP NOW OR ANYTIME IN THE NEAR TO DISTANT FUTURE!
Does that cover it better?
What I don’t get are the GOP haters who naively suggest that if conservatives just picked up our marbles, bail on the GOP and start a new party it would somehow take off like a rocket and conservatives would be winning elections in no time.
You’ve probably heard some variation on the theme: “if we only just gave it a chance and everyone got behind it….” Yeah, sure…
The closest thing to a major third party movement was Ross Perot and his volunteers. 19% in popular vote in 1992 but he failed to win a single state. 8% in 1996. Billions of dollars spent and years of time invested and nothing to show for it. And as a consequence the nation was subjected to 8 years of Clinton scandals and ignoring terrorism.
You can dump on the Grand Old Party all you want. But it’s the only game in town if you want to see conservatives elected to office. Hoffman is the exception but he’s really a Republican isn’t he?
Nope… he’s a conservative. And as long as anyone believes it’s “the only game in town”, it will be… and the losing team to boot.
I’m most certainly not ready to bail on the Republican Party because I still believe in reform. If some want to call me naive, that’s fine. But, it’s still the best gig there is, in my opinion. And, there’s room for diversity of opinions, thus the ‘Big Tent’. My county Republicans committee has Ron Paul folks in it, and I’m sure it has Conservative Party folks in it as well, because they know that it’s the most effective route to take. But, I’m very excited about Hoffman because it’s stirring things up, and that can be a very good thing. It has worked well for Sarah Palin! 🙂
@MataHarley: So Hoffman isn’t a Republican? Why did he try and win the nomination for this special election?
And as far as losing goes, I recall more than one time when we swept the field. And that wasn’t because of any third party.
The same reason that Ron Paul – a liberatarian – switched to the GOP, Mike. Because indy voters are encouraged by partisans to vote “lesser evil” than vote their principles. Paul at least has the integrity to stay true to his libertarian principles as an elected Republican.
I can recall an instance where an election swept the field sans any 3rd party… that would be last Nov…. when the GOP chose to run a Dem-lite. The current POTUS won even despite ostracizing the Hillary voters. Many of whom added to McCain’s numbers. Even more sad for the “Dem-lite” as a preferred option tact.
I repeat… so how’s all these decades of electing Dem-lites in the Congress working out for you, Mike? I’m done. You can pull out your elephant suit. Me? I’ll exercise my right to vote for whom I think is the best candidate… despite the letter behind their name. That’s because I’m conservative, not partisan.
“Nope… he’s a conservative. And as long as anyone believes it’s “the only game in town”, it will be… and the losing team to boot.”
Please elaborate upon the plethora of other “games in town”. Viable options are apparently growing on f*%king trees and I’ve missed them altogether.
Please educate us.
Best,
Chuck
I guess the battle for the independent swing voter that is the deciding factor for most of these races has gone over your head, ccoffer. One doesn’t have to have a letter behind their name to be valuable as a voter.
Are we really expected to buy this line of crystalline bullshit about so called conservatives having no preference for one party over the other??
How retarded are we expected to be?
How many communists are in the republican party?
If your answer is greater than zero, you aren’t.
Switching your argument now, ccoffer? “Let me be clear”, as the eunuch-in-chief loves to say… I don’t expect “crystalline” parties. However I also don’t cotton to the GOP party leaders acquiescing to the lesser principles in their tent as their public front. As I said, the Dem-lites should be the second stringer to the core conservative values of fiscal responsibility and small government. As long as the party leadership publicly supports candidates that are diametrically opposed to those core values, they remain losers.
The rest of us? We’ll be the coveted “indy swing voters”.
“I guess the battle for the independent swing voter that is the deciding factor for most of these races has gone over your head, ccoffer. One doesn’t have to have a letter behind their name to be valuable as a voter.”
Is meaningless gibberish the new hip?
I’d rather speak English…any time you’re ready.
Mata, word and several others here have engaged in ridiculous exaggerations and outright strawmen when attempting to say why we are wrong. I have made it very clear, I am ok with true moderates, I don’t want “pure” candidates, and I want to reform the GOP not destroy it.
We’ve had enough of those like newt who will blindly follow the party off a cliff. Sadly when we criticize newt for doing just that, his past is brought up as if that excuses his multiple dem-lite actions now. My favorite is that he isn’t as bad as grahamnasty. It’s like saying that a rapist isn’t all that bad compared to a guy who raped and murdered his victim. THEY ARE BOTH SCUM who deserve scorn! Not to mention as long as we let those like newt and party blue-bloods pull such stunts we WILL NOT get pelosi out of office.
Mata, you nailed it dead center about how the GOP should be. Conservatives in charge with moderates supporting. Dem-lite will destroy the party. If the GOP doesn’t get this, then they will eventually be tossed aside for a new party. That is a fact.
Lastly, we do need to stop voting for someone just because of their party affiliation. If I come accross a DINO running against a RINO, guess who I’ll vote for? Whoever is better regardless of party.
Newt believes the New York 23 special election is a test of whether we respect local parties and local leaders…..
Ok, so if the PARTY says it so, we all accept it and bow down or something??? That’s utter stupidity….The above quote simply shows these guys are becoming as much a “kiss ass party hack” group as the left has become… I thought as a whole those of the “Conservative persuasion” were far ABOVE that!! And it shows one GLARING thing…. they DON’T GET IT!!! WE, as a majority out here DO NOT AGREE with where they have been going…. and they are IGNORING this large shift/group….. and its going to HURT them in the long run!!!
CCoffer…. i’ve read some of your stuff, and I can see where you are coming from…. you really aren’t too far off base (IMHO) BUT it seems (correct me if i’m wrong, i’m kinda new here) that you hang onto the idea that “a vote for anything other than the “big two” is a WASTED vote…. I used to be a subscriber to that line of thought….. but after this last election, and the screwing we got, what did we have to lose??? We lost anyway!!!! McCain was NOT the strongest candidate the party could have fielded, so WHY did they run him??? Old party bosses chose to??? What about OUR choices??? Hell near the end he was almost CAMPAIGNING for Obama, saying he wasn’t someone to be afraid of etc.. and I think we can all agree THAT was way off base truth wise!!! So why the heck should we trust these bozo’s anymore, they are just as bad as the LEFT when it comes to the Members wants vs. the PARTIES wants!! WE don’t MATTER!! Except at vote and contribute money time…. and that time is about to END!! The only way to effect CHANGE in the system that now exhists… to to DENY those who are RUNNING it, THEIR WAY!! Screw us, and YOU lose, BIG TIME!! Message sent….. time to take control BACK!! Those that have it, aren’t using it for US, they’re using it for THEMSELVES…… and that time too is about UP!
HR, I’d say we mostly agree save for the fact that I don’t feel the need to “reform” the GOP. ’tisn’t my job, nor my quest. The leadership powerhouses will simply have to come to the conclusion that they have distanced themselves from their base and their principles. If they do not, and the base doesn’t demand leadership more in line with the basics (as most here have indicated they will not do….), then I have to assume that party is also not one to which I need to belong.
Indy status has suited me for years. It will suit me for years to come. And at some point, there will be enough ostracized Hillary Dems and fed up conservatives to make one hefty “no party” melting pot of America that owes zip allegience to any political party. Neither of the majors will be able to win squat without winning over the hearts of the non-partisan voter. Both will be forced to rethink their selection of candidates merely for the indy voter. And that’s an achievement above just sucking it up for yet another loser politician… blindly responding to the call to be yet another partisan anti-vote.
@MataHarley: Can’t you be a partisan conservative?
Don’t make me come over there!
@MataHarley #63:
No, didn’t confuse you at all. Just lumped you in with the others who were raising the room temperature with ccoffer. I might have springboarded off of your comment; but I was addressing others in general. Basically, those who seem to share your perspective.
It’s not you; but there are those aligned on your side of the chalk line who seem to want to shrink the party and dilute it of those they deem not conservative enough….which seems to amount to anyone to the left of said conservative. Note Old Trooper’s comment #13:
How else am I to interpret that?
Which I’m not accusing you of. Again, I’m addressing the overall atmosphere amongst the “angry-as-hell-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore conservative purists (sorry Hard Right, but that’s how some of y’all behave).
What uber-conservative would have won in the last election, more to the right of McCain? Name a single GOP (or third party conservative) candidate in the last election who could have won against the uber-liberal dream candidate of the Dems. The deck was stacked, and it had little to do with not running a hard-core conservative in ’08; nor with “true” conservatives angry with the GOP “dem-lites” as you call it, sitting it out and not coming to bat for McCain. They came to bat against Obama and for Palin, if nothing else.
It’s not being “cowed” nor is it “bs” to take electability into consideration. Voting third party candidates is a selfish throwing away of your vote if that candidate has an unrealistic chance of actually winning. Did Perot not help us get Clinton or not? What is principled about losing elections?
Until such times as when the vast majority of the country leans in one direction politically, electability should be taken into consideration. Voting for the candidate with whom you share the most in common “on principle” rather than for the one you know has the best chance of winning but who you agree with less, is not a winning strategy.
The problem with party purists is they can’t get it into their heads that a good percentage of the voting block doesn’t agree with them, ideologically. They think “if only voters understood my such-and-such ideology better, we’d be loved and embraced.”
Then I’d be one guilty as charged.
Voting for the candidate you agree with solely on principle (shared ideology) with no accounting for whether or not he has a realistic chance of winning, is to throw away your chance of influencing the election outcome in favor of the candidate who most closely represents you AND stands a chance of winning. American politics is a two-party system.
And yes, I’ll go with a lesser of two evils, when given two choices. Primaries are for “teaching lessons” and trying to get that dream candidate. In the general election, you go with the “lesser of two evils”.
Sorry you take it so personally, but so be it. My address was only partially directed toward you, and wasn’t meant to be a personal attack. But I suppose passions run volatile on this issue, which is why people otherwise aligned like ccoffer and Hard Right and Co. are drawing lines in the sand and exchanging ideas and debate laced with insults rather than ideas and debate minus the contemptuous tone.
And I’m not saying go with party leadership that have abandoned core conservatism. I’m not saying “electability” is what matters first and foremost. But it has to be taken into consideration.
There are hard-liners out there who, if Reagan were alive today, would not be “Reagan” enough for those conservatives. I’m not talking about going rah-rah over a candidate who only votes conservative on 50% of the issues. They can vote GOP, but I don’t want them as the GOP leadership any more than you. But when it comes time to influence an election result, you have two choices: Candidate A or candidate B. That, to me, is being practical and realistic.
Sorry, but in general, party matters. Carrying party majorities to get anything done, matters in Congress. And voting party is a principled position because majority in power is how you get legislation pushed through.
A political party is a coalition of people with different opinions, but who are aligned together on some basic core issues and shared principles.
No one is saying grow “the big tent” so huge as to make one side indistinguishable from the other. But you don’t win elections by shrinking the tent in a purification purge, either. Yeah, that makes sense- shrink the party in a one vote/per person system.
@Hard Right #56:
This is hardly a strawman. Party purists are alive and well, even if they refuse to see themselves as such.
And both Mike and I have said that Newt is in the wrong and we agree that Hoffman should be supported.
But based upon past comments in other threads, yeah, I’d classify you as one of those demanding a party purge and shrinkage of the tent. In some ways, good, well, and needed; and in other ways, I think harmful. No offense meant. Just disagreement on how best to proceed with a winning strategy on how to effectively move the country further right.
Wordsmith full deck comment #52:
If conservatives want the GOP to continue trending to the right, keep trying to effect change from within the party. Going outside of one of the two major parties is wasted effort. Ron Paul was smart enough to understand that.
And my point regarding Reagan on the meaning of “compromise” as opposed to appeasement, is in part, this.
Reagan worked to get what he wanted; but sometimes, that included compromise with a politically divided Congress, through the system of bargaining. In order to get what you want, sometimes you have to give up something in return.
I’ve never been a Newt fan; but when you take harumphrage to my mention of party purists, as though it’s myth-making figment of the imagination…..say again that it’s a “strawman” when you make comments like the above blockquote?
@Hard Right:
If I pegged your number wrong, then I apologize. Really, my label of “party purist” wasn’t directed at you; but you seized upon it, and personalized it.
I’m in agreement that strong conservatives should lead the party.
But come election day, you go with the realistic, pragmatic choices available to you.
@Hankster58 comment #76:
That would have to assume that McCain’s sin was strictly based upon not being a further-to-the-right conservative candidate.
1.McCain ran a lousy campaign.
2. Timing of the financial crisis
3. Dems ran an uber-candidate that captured liberal imaginations ever since his ’04 DNC speech
4. Obama ran as a bipartisan, post-racial second-coming of JFK/MLK moderate and uniter.
5. Media support that shaped Obama’s image
6. After 8 years of hammering away, nation was Bush-fatigued….2 wars, Katrina….
7. McCain didn’t lose because he failed to win the conservative vote over Obama. He failed to excite and win over the moderates and centrists, who were fooled into voting for Obama by the romanticized message of “hope” and “change”.
Welcome to FA, btw.
Just a little family-squabble going on. We’re all friends here. 🙂
@Hard Right comment #75 revisited:
Come to think of it, this is no less than the ridiculous exaggerated positions and claims you are (mis)characterizing my side of the argument with. Really, it’s tit for tat.
@Hankster58:
That’s an overexaggerated mischaracterization (it’s called “civility”).
Because the “paling around with terrorists” Palin comment set such a better tone and winning approach to attract non-conservative voters, right? Might have worked, had the MSM done its job to figure out what she meant by that linkage. Without the clarification, without the research, it’s interpreted by those centrists who don’t follow politics like you and I and who generally hate politics because of all the rancor and divisiveness it breeds, the phrase looks like hate-smear. It turned voters off.
Yes you pegged my number wrong and your remark certainly seemed aimed at me, Mata, or both of us.
Tit for tat? You’re the victim? Riiight. See your #52 and #79 and then tell me you didn’t distort my/our position to support your own. So am I supposed to assume your words don’t mean what they clearly do? And since when can I not call you out by name for what you’ve said?
BTW, where did I claim that there were NO Conservative partisans looking to purge anyone who didn’t meet their litmus test? Nowhere. You know why? Because I have seen them. Go to Hot Air and check out the Florida elections thread. Cheney and Rove RINOs? Uh-huh…and I’m the Pope.
My past statements. How long ago was that? I specifically recall that at the time you are likely referring to, I had you pegged wrong and was still cheesed from an elections loss. You are in fact an actual moderate and that is fine with me. It’s the RINOs I want gone. Specter and snowe were/are two examples of RINOs.
Perhaps we’ve been talking past each other. Whatever as it doesn’t matter.
I’ve had a bit of an awakening and it’s clear this R only, vote for who the party says is small minded BS. The reason why we are in our current situation is because of mindless party loyalty plus allowing our choices to be the lesser of two evils. In the end, we are still voting for evil.
Yes there will still be such situations and we will have to vote for the little evil, but we should be looking to minimize those situations as much as possible. That does mean supporting the best available candidate at the grass roots level, but it also means holding our leader’s feet to the fire when they make decisions like the one in NY-23.
As for newt, he is NOT a Conservative any more and this is just the latest example. He even pitched his integrity down the drain in his defense of dede scuzzy. Saying she is a moderate or even a liberal Republican should be enough for people to see that he will lie for the sake of the party bosses at the expense of the country.
I could write a post on how newt is lying and even he knows it. In fact, I just might.
I agree with that.
For as long as you’ve been commenting here, it’s about time you submitted a post.
@Hard Right #84:
Let’s be clear: I’m a radicalized moderate extremist! Faaaaaaar to the center-right!
Dang! Hoffman is racking up Republican endorsements. The pendulum is swinging to the right.
Wordsmith said……
That would have to assume that McCain’s sin was strictly based upon not being a further-to-the-right conservative candidate.
1.McCain ran a lousy campaign.
2. Timing of the financial crisis
3. Dems ran an uber-candidate that captured liberal imaginations ever since his ‘04 DNC speech
4. Obama ran as a bipartisan, post-racial second-coming of JFK/MLK moderate and uniter.
5. Media support that shaped Obama’s image
6. After 8 years of hammering away, nation was Bush-fatigued….2 wars, Katrina….
7. McCain didn’t lose because he failed to win the conservative vote over Obama. He failed to excite and win over the moderates and centrists, who were fooled into voting for Obama by the romanticized message of “hope” and “change”.
1> Yep!!
2>partially, but the fact he was such a WUSS, and didn’t go after the TRUTH of the matter, which is the “party in power”(DEMOCRATS) knew of the whole impending collapse since 2003, and again in 2006 after hearings concluded in the investigation of FRAUD and cooking the books by a couple of Clinton appointees who played with numbers to get BONUSES…. just one part of the collapse equation, but a powerful and PROVABLE one, had he the Cajones to have used it….instead he tried to “play nice”… in a battle for the soul of the country, he got STUPID!!
3>True… that and having the MSM give him “godlike” coverage….and LACK of any reporting of Obama’s “faults”…. and the nit picking reporting of ANYTHING that could hurt Mac and Palin…
4>yep, he did. Too bad he was LYING thru his TEETH!! LOL!! And people were too stupid to question anything the “candyman” was promising!!! Greed has gotten a hold of too many folks..
5>True…. not so much “support” for him, as for the ideals of the socialist agenda,, they still are!
6>True, hammering away by the leftist media…. truth be damned!!
7>True again… I said the “party” didn’t give us the BEST chance candidate… we got thier “flunky” boy choice, which we all know was a BAD one!! Media set up the “right” to get hammered… the REPUB party then HELPED them by giving us a guy who didn’t, as the movie said, have “the RIGHT STUFF”!!! We got our asses handed to us…. couple that with the lefts “indoctrination” of “uncle sugar will give you EVERYTHING”…. GREED of the masses…. and the stage was set. Hope now is coming from the fact it seems a OT of peole are “waking up” AND SEEING THE REALITY FROM THE B.S. ….
I said,,,,”Hell near the end he was almost CAMPAIGNING for Obama, saying he wasn’t someone to be afraid of etc.. ”
That’s an overexaggerated mischaracterization (it’s called “civility”).
>>> I don’t think so…. civility?? When running, YOU are the MAN!! the other guy is LESS than you are!!! you go in with that “i’ve lost” attitude before it’s over, and buddy it IS OVER!!!
Because the “paling around with terrorists” Palin comment set such a better tone and winning approach to attract non-conservative voters, right?
>>> shame is, it was the TRUTH!!!!
Might have worked, had the MSM done its job to figure out what she meant by that linkage.
>>> MSM is Obama’s whore!!! do thier job??? Not in a LONG time!!! Why do you think Barry O has his panties in a wad all the time over FOX?!?!?! The one whore he CANNOT control!!! You mentioned “civility” above…. where is Obama’s??? Man acts like a spoiled child.. can’t take the criticism without crying….. why do you think “Internet Neutrality and the Fairnesws Doctrine” were even brought up?? To MUZZLE any dissent!!!! Socialism….
Without the clarification, without the research, it’s interpreted by those centrists who don’t follow politics like you and I and who generally hate politics because of all the rancor and divisiveness it breeds, the phrase looks like hate-smear. It turned voters off.
>>> too bad so many today are just so friggin STUPID and uninformed… sad but true… so here you are Correct too….. AND lazy!! If the MSM don’t give it too you straight…GET off your lazy butts and look it up YOURSELF!! I see this “laziness” where I work now… people call US for info, info they could get online in minutes, if they had either a BRAIN, or enough gumption to do for themselves!!! Nanny state/dumbing down/be a freeloader.. it’s all effecting things now….
I wonder how Newt feels now that his endorsed pick left the race and is now endorsing the Democrat.